[Winnipegger]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

All I'm trying to get at here is that it is that the total federal debt did in fact increase as a whole under the Liberals from 1993 to 2005. Again, as I have stated before, I do give them credit for eliminating the deficit and for starting to pay down the debt but I can not find one single source to support the statement that the federal debt was less when they left as compared to what it was when they took power.

First, the 1993 election was held on October 25; on 31-March-1993 the Prime Minister was still Brian Mulroney. Even Kim Campbell hadn't been selected yet. You can't blame Liberals for anything before they were elected. The first figure in your table under the Liberal administration is 31-March-1994.

Looking at your table, the gross debt peaked on 31-March-1997, and fell until the end of your table. The gross debt for 31-March-2008 is lower than 31-March-1995, but not lower than 1994. Liberals were voted out on 23-January-2006, so to look at the debt at the beginning and end of the Chrétien/Martin administration the gross debt went from $557.877B to $619.701B. Is that what you're saying? That the Liberals did eliminate what was at that time Canada's record deep deficit, did turn it around to surplus, and did succeed in paying down the debt, but they did not pay off the debt incurred during their first few years in office?

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The debt level when they actually took office and left office show a different picture. Its easily fair to say the Libs are responsible for the debt from 1994 & 2006

Actually I don’t agree with that, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the increase in debt levels were 100% their fault. They made a transition from one type of economic planning to another, that can’t be done with a flick of a switch. Before they could in act their own changes they had to deal with the debts and the resulting interest payments that had been incurred due to policies in the past, as did Mulroney when he took power after Trudeau.

DerbyX DerbyX:

and using your numbers that is a a difference of less then a billion dollars.

Whether you use 93/94 or 2005/2006 the debt increased.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Certainly the debt as a %GDP went WAY down which was the really important factor, kinda like the difference in owing 10K when you make 50K and owing 10K when you make 100K.

Which is why, in fairness, I posted a chart which demonstrates that.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Is that what you're saying? That the Liberals did eliminate what was at that time Canada's record deep deficit, did turn it around to surplus, and did succeed in paying down the debt, but they did not pay off the debt incurred during their first few years in office?

Yes

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Actually I don’t agree with that, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the increase in debt levels were 100% their fault. They made a transition from one type of economic planning to another, that can’t be done with a flick of a switch. Before they could in act their own changes they had to deal with the debts and the resulting interest payments that had been incurred due to policies in the past, as did Mulroney when he took power after Trudeau.

Then they get credit for every surplus Harper had. It was under their economic planning that they happened. That puts them into an even better light.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Whether you use 93/94 or 2005/2006 the debt increase.

A less then 1 billion dollar increase is statistically nothing and when viewed from a %debt decrease of about 30% tells a very different tale.

It seems utterly like sour grapes to me when people (and I'm not blaming you) complain that the Libs actually added to the debt when they set everything in place to get us out of it. Its the proverbial looking for the grey cloud in the silver linings. The Libs are slammed for somehow adding a measly 1 billion while Harper is somehow an economic hero for adding ONLY 54 billion last year.

If the situation were reversed all the Cons would be claiming the results showed the CPC to be the mythical fiscal conservatives and the Libs to be the Tax & Spend Libs they are said to be.

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Then they get credit for every surplus Harper had. It was under their economic planning that they happened. That puts them into an even better light.

I don't think it's unfair to say any government benifits from the prudent fiscal management from the government before it and vice versa. Mulroney inherited a mess and put in place many policies which benifited the consecutive Liberal governments. Do you think Martin could have steered the same course had it not been for the GST and NAFTA? I'll give credit where it's due, maybe you should do the same.

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Whether you use 93/94 or 2005/2006 the debt increase.

A less then 1 billion dollar increase is statistically nothing and when viewed from a %debt decrease of about 30% tells a very different tale.

Still increased, and OnTheIce didn't deserve to be jumped on for stating something which was true.

[Lemmy]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

It did increase according to the sources I have found. It was by no means some kind of crazy spending spree but it did go up. I don't believe that is an unfair statement to make and I believe OnTheIce was correct in what he stated.

You need to do a better job of interpreting your sources. OnTheIce is not correct, nor are you.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

I don't think it's unfair to say any government benifits from the prudent fiscal management from the government before it and vice versa. Mulroney inherited a mess and put in place many policies which benifited the consecutive Liberal governments. Do you think Martin could have steered the same course had it not been for the GST and NAFTA? I'll give credit where it's due, maybe you should do the same.

That depends on whether you think NAFTA was good or bad. Its been years since we've had a debate there but plenty have said it hurt us too. Myself I don't know. The GST however replaced a tax not added to it so it wasn't as much a plus as a plus/minus/equal.

Scape posted an article before (I've lost the link) that explained how the secret behind the Liberal surplus was how & where they did their cuts rather then increasing revenue.

Yeah I think Martin would have managed it without NAFTA & without the GST. Remember the liberals tried to get rid of the GST and bring in BSTs. Of course that is a matter of semantics. Manufacturer tax, Goods & Services tax, Blended sales tax ..... Its like comparing Carp, Cod, and Tuna. It still stinks like fish, the rest is a matter of taste.

Lets ask a different question. What would a PC party (or Reform party) have done differently and what result would they have achieved. Don't forget to add in things like the state of the military.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Still increased, and OnTheIce didn't deserve to be jumped on for stating something which was true.

Perhaps but the Liberals don't deserve to be treated like they added billions and billions onto the debt when the facts simply don't quite bear that out.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Lemmy Lemmy:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

It did increase according to the sources I have found. It was by no means some kind of crazy spending spree but it did go up. I don't believe that is an unfair statement to make and I believe OnTheIce was correct in what he stated.

You need to do a better job of interpreting your sources. OnTheIce is not correct, nor are you.

And you need to do a better job of providing your sources. I'm using the very source which you stated you got your figures from. Am I using the wrong data series, did I not factoring something in? Again:

Your 2005 numbers are way out of line with what’s found on CanSim's chart. If I've posted something different from what you've found in the past then I'm open to discussing it.

That's why we post this stuff, so that it can be openly debated. I put up what I found and you have given you an opportunity to go through it and comment on it. I'm sure that you yourself are more than credible but there is a big difference between the 450 billion figure that you posted and the 523 billion figure which your source is indicating.

[Winnipegger]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Is that what you're saying? That the Liberals did eliminate what was at that time Canada's record deep deficit, did turn it around to surplus, and did succeed in paying down the debt, but they did not pay off the debt incurred during their first few years in office?

Yes

Then I have to point out that the May 2006 budget states the "status quo surplus" for 2005/06 was $17.4 billion. That budget stated their intention to increase spending so as to reduce the surplus for 2005/06 to $8.0 billion. Since there was only 2 months from the time the Harper ministers were sworn-in until fiscal year end, that would have required a spending spree of $9.4 billion. Notice a problem with this: fiscal year end is March 31, but the budget came out in May. Any spending after March 31 is attributed to the next fiscal year. According to the Auditor General's report released in the summer of 2006, the surplus for fiscal year 2005/06 was $13.2 billion. So they didn't spend as much as they intended, but they spend an additional $4.2 billion in just their first 2 months.

Conservative surplus for 2006/07 was $9.2 billion, according to the 2007 budget. For 2007/08 the surplus was $9.6 billion, according to the 2009 budget. The 2010 budget reported 2008/09 had a $5.8 billion deficit. The 2011 budget (tabled but not passed due to parliament dissolving) reported the deficit for 2009/10 was $55.6 billion, and projected the deficit for 2010/11 would be $40.5 billion. That last figure is a projection; the Auditor General's report won't be out until this summer.

I'm saying all the debt would have been gone by 31-March-2009 if the Liberals had been re-elected in 2006. That is, the debt would have been down to the level it was when the Liberals were elected in October 1993. That's when stimulus spending started. We would have been in a much better place to deal with the recession if we had a surplus in 2008/09. As it was the Conservatives drove us into deficit BEFORE the US banking crisis.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Is that what you're saying? That the Liberals did eliminate what was at that time Canada's record deep deficit, did turn it around to surplus, and did succeed in paying down the debt, but they did not pay off the debt incurred during their first few years in office?

Yes

Then I have to point out that the May 2006 budget states the "status quo surplus" for 2005/06 was $17.4 billion. That budget stated their intention to increase spending so as to reduce the surplus for 2005/06 to $8.0 billion. Since there was only 2 months from the time the Harper ministers were sworn-in until fiscal year end, that would have required a spending spree of $9.4 billion. Notice a problem with this: fiscal year end is March 31, but the budget came out in May. Any spending after March 31 is attributed to the next fiscal year. According to the Auditor General's report released in the summer of 2006, the surplus for fiscal year 2005/06 was $13.2 billion. So they didn't spend as much as they intended, but they spend an additional $4.2 billion in just their first 2 months.

Conservative surplus for 2006/07 was $9.2 billion, according to the 2007 budget. For 2007/08 the surplus was $9.6 billion, according to the 2009 budget. The 2010 budget reported 2008/09 had a $5.8 billion deficit. The 2011 budget (tabled but not passed due to parliament dissolving) reported the deficit for 2009/10 was $55.6 billion, and projected the deficit for 2010/11 would be $40.5 billion. That last figure is a projection; the Auditor General's report won't be out until this summer.

I'm saying all the debt would have been gone by 31-March-2009 if the Liberals had been re-elected in 2006. That is, the debt would have been down to the level it was when the Liberals were elected in October 1993. That's when stimulus spending started. We would have been in a much better place to deal with the recession if we had a surplus in 2008/09. As it was the Conservatives drove us into deficit BEFORE the US banking crisis.

And exactly what does that have to do with Lemmy's numbers not matching he source he quoted?

[Curtman]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Your 2005 numbers are way out of line with what’s found on CanSim's chart. If I've posted something different from what you've found in the past then I'm open to discussing it.

The document I linked to way back when shows similar numbers to the CanSim ones you posted as well..

FEDERAL DEFICIT: CHANGING TRENDS
1982-83 136,671 (millions)
1983-84 169,549
1984-85 207,986 (Mulroney)
1985-86 242,581
1986-87 273,323
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91 390,820
1991-92 425,177
1992-93 466,198
1993-94 508,210
1994-95 545,672 (Chretien)
1995-96 574,289
1996-97 583,186 (Peak ... Until Harper)
1997-98 579,708

[dino_bobba_renno]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

The 2010 budget reported 2008/09 had a $5.8 billion deficit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm saying all the debt would have been gone by 31-March-2009 if the Liberals had been re-elected in 2006. That is, the debt would have been down to the level it was when the Liberals were elected in October 1993. That's when stimulus spending started. We would have been in a much better place to deal with the recession if we had a surplus in 2008/09. As it was the Conservatives drove us into deficit BEFORE the US banking crisis.

Ok I see what you're getting at here. Sorry I'm right in the middle of doing a proposal so I don't have a lot of time to look closely at what you're saying. Sorry if I cut you off there.


Just a question here, don't you think the market crash in that happened in October 2008 had any impact on the Federal revenues for the 2008/2009 year?

*I have to get back to work here or I'll be stuck here all night. So If I don't respond right away thats why.

**I remember the day the market crashed so clearly, I was actually over at my bank and I was getting ready to dump a whole bunch of cash into Encana and CNRL and as I was sitting there talkng to my banker I could see the markets going down on the screen behind him.

[Winnipegger]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

don't you think the market crash in that happened in October 2008 had any impact on the Federal revenues for the 2008/2009 year?

Of course it did. But if we started with around $17 billion surplus, we would have had a smaller surplus that year rather than a deficit. Stimulus spending in subsequent years would have caused a deficit, but starting with a surplus rather than deficit would have resulted in a smaller deficit.

Furthermore, I don't think Conservative stimulus spending has been well spent. For example, they didn't subsidize a sewage treatment plant for the town of Stonewall, Manitoba; just north of Winnipeg. That town had a major employer move in a few years ago, causing a housing boom. Employees want to leave near work rather than drive 45 minutes to an hour each way to/from Winnipeg. The town's sewage treatment plant is at capacity; the province prohibitted further house construction until they expand it. So subidizing that would have stimulated major house construction. Instead of doing that, they're building bicycle paths in Winnipeg.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Well, first off I have to address a comment from your previous post. It is impossible to tell what would have happened had Martin been re-elected. To say that we would have had the debt paid off by 2009 is in my opinion nothing more than speculation and poor speculation at that. There’s no telling what type of spending and/or policy initiatives Martin would have introduced in that time frame.

Maybe he would have introduced a carbon tax which could have had possible adverse effects, maybe he would have increased spending to win the 2008 election, maybe he would have followed a similar path of corporate tax cuts, who’s to say?

I think his spending would have been a bit more under control but to say he would have had the federal debt paid off by 2009, I’m sorry but that goes even beyond a long shot. You’re basically saying that he would have paid off over 500 billion in 3 years.

As for increases in spending over the past few years, some of it was necessary, some not. The “New Deal” for the provinces, increases to military spending, corporate tax cuts, child tax benefit, TFSA’s …. Most of the larger spending initiatives were election pledges and it was those spending commitments which got them elected. You or I may not have agreed with some or all of them but enough Canadians did and that’s why they’re in government and Martin and Dion are not. It’s what Canadians wanted.
*(For the record though, I would agree that not all of the spending initiatives were necessary)

As for stimulus spending the provinces did have some say in where the money was going. Also, with the time frame in which the stimulus was rolled out I’m surprised it’s not worse.

Now I gotta hit the sack, long day tomorrow and that damn proposal still isn’t done.

[Winnipegger]

No, I said he would have paid the debt down to the level it was when the Liberal government was elected in 1993. Not the whole debt, just pay off the debt incurred during the Liberal years. The deficit was killed so quickly that there wasn't much debt to start with, and had been paid down so rapidly that he need only stay the course. Furthermore, the 2005 budget stated the intention of raising the surplus to $14.4 billion by 2009. But the surplus for 2005/06 ended up much larger than predicted in the 2005 budget, so they didn't need to raise it. If they only kept the surplus between $17.4 billion (the actual surplus for 2005/06) and their stated target of $14.4 billion, then the debt would have been reduced to the level it was at the 25-October-1993 election, and they would have done that by 31-March-2009. I think expecting them to stay the course between their actual surplus and their stated intent is a reasonable assumption.
source for stated target: 2005 budget, "full budget plan", PDF document, page 249
source for 2005/06 "status quo surplus": 2006 budget, mentioned serveral times

Carbon tax? No, Stéphane Dion stated he pushed for that while Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. The Chrétien/Martin Liberals said no. That's based on what Mr. Dion said during leadership debates, and a personal 2-hour conversation I had with him when he was campaigning for the leadership. I was a delegate. Based on past decisions, it's reasonable to believe they would stick by them. Dion only got his carbon tax in the platform by winning the leadership.

Corporate tax cuts? The Liberals did pass the bill to abolish corporate capital tax. The Conservatives try to take credit for it, but it was the Martin Liberals. They did state their intention to abolish corporate surtax, but not until after they could reduce personal income tax a little more. They did reduce corporate income tax from 28% when they took over from the Mulroney Conservatives in 1993, down to 21% as it was in 2006. They stated their intention to reduce it further to 19%, but only when the economy improved enough to do so without jeopardizing the surplus. So my assumption is based on Liberal stated intentions.

GST? No, Liberals stated their intention to keep it at 7%. No increase, no decrease. Just don't touch it.

Spending? Yes, the Paul Martin Liberals did state their intention to implement a national childcare program. This program would have cost roughly $500 million. That is instead of the Conservative $100/month childcare cheques; what does that cost, $2.6 billion?
source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... omise.html

So yes, it is reasonable to assume that Paul Martin would continue the policies he had implemented since he was Finance Minister in 1993. (Or was he sworn-in January 1994?) That would have resulted in reducing the debt to the October 1993 level by the date I calculated.